Back
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Jagarnath Yadav @ Mishraji – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Vipul M. Pancholi, J. – All the present appeals have been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Code’) challenging the judgment of conviction dated 17.12.2019 and order of sentence dated 19.12.2019 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Banka in Sessions Trial No. 418 of 2017, G.R. No. 2618 of 2014, arising out of Belhar P.S. Case No. 225 of 2014 dated 26.12.2014, whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted the present appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act and held five accused persons guilty, including the appellants and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence under Section 364 IPC and, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days each. All the five convicts and all the accused including the appellants have further been directed to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo S.I. for 30 days each for the offence under Section 302 IPC and further R
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and any failure in procedural fairness, particularly in the examination of the accused, can lead to the quashing of a conv....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on related witnesses without corroboration is insufficient for conviction.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on witness testimony requires corroboration, especially when witnesses are near relatives.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
The prosecution must establish charges beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictions in witness testimony and failure to seize crucial evidence can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
The judgment establishes that minor discrepancies in witness testimonies, which do not materially affect the case, cannot be the basis for doubting the prosecution's case.
The court emphasized that lack of essential documentation and procedural compliance invalidates the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused who were convicted of kidnapping for ra....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
